List of tables and figures
Table 1. The diet of
spider Phoneutria boliviensis from Colombia identified by DNA
metabarcoding. Number of taxa corresponds to those identified to
species, genera and family level by sex and populations (= locality).
Figure 1. Colombian locations selected for sampling and
collecting specimens of Phoneutria boliviensis .
Figure 2. Intersex bipartite prey–spider species interaction
network. Lines connect the males and females (left) to dietary species
OTUs (bottom, colored by taxonomic order). The length of the boxes on
the left reflects the number of prey analyzed for each OTU; the length
of the boxes on the right reflects the relative abundance of each prey
per OTU in each taxonomic order of prey in all samples in the data set;
and the width of the connecting lines reflects the relative reads
abundance of each OTU within the diet of each taxonomic order. We show
only the connections that represent ≥1% of the diet of each species
(total n = 234 OTUs). a) Araneae, b) Blattodea, c) Coleoptera, d)
Dermaptera, e) Diptera, f) Hemiptera, g) Hymenoptera, h) Lepidoptera, i)
Orthoptera, j) Phasmatodea, k) Squamata.
Figure 3. The relative
abundance of reads per sample and locality. The boxes on the x-axis
represent each individual by population. The different colors represent
the relative abundance of reads for each taxonomic order.
Figure 4. Sample-based rarefaction curves of prey richness (q0)
in the three Colombian populations of P. boliviensis , denoted by
the three colors. Line types indicate whether estimates are interpolated
(solid) or extrapolated (dashed). Ribbons indicate the 95% confidence
intervals (CIs) obtained by the bootstrap method based on 1000
replications.
Figure 5. Interpopulation bipartite prey–spider species
interaction network. Lines connect the Barbosa, Oporapa and Ibagué
localities (left) to dietary OTUs (bottom, colored by taxonomic order).
The length of the boxes on the left reflects the number of prey analyzed
for each OTU. The length of the boxes on the right reflects the relative
abundance of each prey per OTU in each taxonomic order of prey in all
samples in the data set, and the width of the connecting lines reflects
the relative reads abundance of each OTU within the diet of each
taxonomic order. We show only the connections that represent ≥1% of the
diet of each species (total n = 234 OTUs). a) Araneae, b) Blattodea, c)
Coleoptera, d) Dermaptera, e) Diptera, f) Hemiptera, g) Hymenoptera, h)
Lepidoptera, i) Orthoptera, j) Phasmatodea, k) Squamata.